Russia / 05 December 2011 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Западно-Сибирского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the West-Siberian District) / Ciments Français (France) v OAO Holding Company Siberian Cement (Russia), OOO Financial Industrial Association Sibconcord (Russia), Istanbul Çimento Yatırımları (Turkey) / A27-781/2011
Country | Russia |
Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Западно-Сибирского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the West-Siberian District) |
Date | 05 December 2011 |
Parties | Ciments Français (France) v OAO Holding Company Siberian Cement (Russia), OOO Financial Industrial Association Sibconcord (Russia), Istanbul Çimento Yatırımları (Turkey) |
Case number | A27-781/2011 |
Applicable NYC Provisions | V | V(1)(e) | V(2)(b) |
Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
Languages | English |
Summary | On 7 December 2010, an arbitral tribunal at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) seated in Istanbul (Turkey) rendered a partial award declaring that the French company Ciments Français had properly exercised its right to terminate a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) entered into with the Russian company Siberian Cement, that the termination was valid, and that Ciments Français was entitled to retain the initial payment amount under the SPA. Ciments Français sought recognition of that partial arbitral award in Russia. The first instance court (Arbitrazh Court of the Kemerovo Region) granted recognition of the award. The Federal Arbitrazh Court for the West-Siberian District cancelled the first instance court’s ruling in cassation on two grounds. First, by reference to Article V(2)(b) NYC, the cassation court held that because there was a decision of a Russian court declaring the SPA void and ordering Ciments Français to return the initial payment amount, the recognition of the partial arbitral award would result in mutually contradictory decisions, which would be contrary to the principle of mandatory authority of Russian court decisions, such principle being an integral part of the public policy of the Russian Federation. Second, by reference to Article V(1)(e) NYC, the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the West-Siberian District considered that because the partial arbitral award was being challenged in Turkish State courts, it was not binding on the parties. |
affirmed by : |
Attachment (2)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |